正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🚨"CHINA'S QUANTUM COMPUTER IS 5.9 BILLION TIMES FASTER THAN GOOGLE'S" Mo Gawdat reveals China's silent dominance in AI infrastructure while warning of unprecedented "dichotomy of power" where mega-corporations concentrate control yet eight-person startups can disrupt billion-dollar industries. "China rarely ever talks about it, but wins it over and over...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

2,718,496 subscribers

178,717 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

China is planning to spend around 2 trillion yuan ($295 billion) over the next five years to build data centers across the country At least 80% of all AI chips must come from domestic suppliers, primarily Huawei. Nvidia and AMD are locked out by design. Nvidia once held a 95% market share in China's AI market. Now? Zero. America did not lose China’s AI chip market because China “closed its doors,” but because America chose to weaponize chips, sanctions, export controls, entity lists, national security hysteria, and technological apartheid against its own largest customer. Washington took the world’s largest chip consumption market — a market that could have funded American semiconductor dominance for another generation — and taught it the most important lesson: Never let your future depend on a supplier that can be turned off by one paranoid empire. So China did what any serious civilization-state would do. It localized. It substituted. It built its own stack. It turned a customer relationship into a sovereignty project. And the same people who tried to choke Huawei are watching Huawei become the backbone of China’s AI infrastructure. This is a textbook own goal. America thought it was denying​ China the future. In reality, it compelled​ China to architect​ the future beyond​ America.
1:02

China is planning to spend around 2 trillion yuan ($295 billion) over the next five years to build data centers across the country At least 80% of all AI chips must come from domestic suppliers, primarily Huawei. Nvidia and AMD are locked out by design. Nvidia once held a 95% market share in China's AI market. Now? Zero. America did not lose China’s AI chip market because China “closed its doors,” but because America chose to weaponize chips, sanctions, export controls, entity lists, national security hysteria, and technological apartheid against its own largest customer. Washington took the world’s largest chip consumption market — a market that could have funded American semiconductor dominance for another generation — and taught it the most important lesson: Never let your future depend on a supplier that can be turned off by one paranoid empire. So China did what any serious civilization-state would do. It localized. It substituted. It built its own stack. It turned a customer relationship into a sovereignty project. And the same people who tried to choke Huawei are watching Huawei become the backbone of China’s AI infrastructure. This is a textbook own goal. America thought it was denying​ China the future. In reality, it compelled​ China to architect​ the future beyond​ America.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

36,831 次观看 • 2 个月前

Elon Musk explains how data centers in Space could help the US compete with China in AI “Given that Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there’s a good chance they would be the leaders. The constraints on AI are essentially electricity and AI chips. China is very strong in digital AI, and it has far more electricity than the United States. In fact, China already has more electricity than the United States, Europe and India combined. The US government can prevent US companies from using Chinese models, but it can’t stop the rest of the world from using them. That won’t stop China from becoming the leader in AI. Digital intelligence comes down to how much AI compute, how many chips and how much electricity you have. The current constraint is electricity outside China. In China, the constraint is chips. China is also closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable it to make AI chips in very large volumes. Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, the constraint will once again be chips outside China.”
4:51

Elon Musk explains how data centers in Space could help the US compete with China in AI “Given that Chinese AI companies are doing as well as they are with a relatively small amount of compute, it seems that if they had a lot of compute, there’s a good chance they would be the leaders. The constraints on AI are essentially electricity and AI chips. China is very strong in digital AI, and it has far more electricity than the United States. In fact, China already has more electricity than the United States, Europe and India combined. The US government can prevent US companies from using Chinese models, but it can’t stop the rest of the world from using them. That won’t stop China from becoming the leader in AI. Digital intelligence comes down to how much AI compute, how many chips and how much electricity you have. The current constraint is electricity outside China. In China, the constraint is chips. China is also closer than most people realize to solving the lithography problem, which would enable it to make AI chips in very large volumes. Once we address the power constraint with AI data centers in space, the constraint will once again be chips outside China.”

DogeDesigner

244,339 次观看 • 20 天前

Jensen Huang is warning that China is winning the AI energy race. $NVDA $AMD $IREN $NBIS 🇨🇳 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 The US is generations ahead on chips, but that doesn't matter if there is no energy to power them. Europe is completely irrelevant in AI and doomed already. It takes 10 years to build a new data center in Germany, as there is no power, and they are turning off nuclear power plants. The US won't let China win, so we could be at the beginning stages of an energy boom. The question is which stocks will benefit from this boom the most?
6:50

Jensen Huang is warning that China is winning the AI energy race. $NVDA $AMD $IREN $NBIS 🇨🇳 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 The US is generations ahead on chips, but that doesn't matter if there is no energy to power them. Europe is completely irrelevant in AI and doomed already. It takes 10 years to build a new data center in Germany, as there is no power, and they are turning off nuclear power plants. The US won't let China win, so we could be at the beginning stages of an energy boom. The question is which stocks will benefit from this boom the most?

Ray Myers

84,029 次观看 • 8 个月前

On Tuesday, I testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on China's strides in robotics and AI. I warned that we lost solar, batteries, and EVs -- now we're at risk of losing robotics and AI. If that happens, it would irreversibly change the balance of power. Five points: 1️⃣ China aims to win the next industrial revolution. PRC leaders believe history is shaped by industrial revolutions. The first, steam power, made Britain dominant. The second and third, electrification and mass manufacturing, made America dominant. China is determined to win the fourth. 2️⃣ In robotics, China is already winning. In 2024, China installed 300,000 new industrial robots. America installed 30,000. China now has over 2 million robots in its factories — five times more than the US. A decade ago, it imported 75% of its robots. Today it makes 60% domestically. This year alone, China may spend $400 billion on industrial policy. The entire US CHIPS Act provided $50 billion across multiple years. If we fall behind here, U.S. reindustrialization becomes farfetched. 3️⃣ In AI, we're ahead — but selling off the advantage. China has more energy, more talent, and makes the edge devices. But America still leads because of chips, according to China's own AI companies. US chips are 4-5x better than China's today. We are debating whether to surrender that edge. 4️⃣ We are inviting risks of cyberespionage and catastrophic cyberattacks. PRC law requires its companies to cooperate with intelligence services and never disclose it. Today's robots carry LiDAR, microphones, and cameras — they are mobile surveillance platforms. But the bigger risk is cyberattack. We know China has compromised our power, gas, water, telecommunications, and transportation infrastructure in preparation for cyberattack. We cannot deploy robots in sensitive facilities from the very country targeting those facilities. 5️⃣ Here's what we must do. Extend ICTS rules to cover Chinese robots. Direct CISA to audit where they're deployed in critical infrastructure. Ban federal procurement of Chinese robotics and AI. Strengthen semiconductor export controls. Stop treating American AI companies with more regulatory scrutiny than Chinese ones. And build allied scale in robotics—a trading bloc with preferential terms for the members that can rival China's scale in in the sector. Thanks to @HomelandDemsIt and House Homeland GOP for the hearing on this topic, and grateful to join Michael Robbins and colleagues from Scale and Boston Dynamics for a great discussion.
5:03

On Tuesday, I testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on China's strides in robotics and AI. I warned that we lost solar, batteries, and EVs -- now we're at risk of losing robotics and AI. If that happens, it would irreversibly change the balance of power. Five points: 1️⃣ China aims to win the next industrial revolution. PRC leaders believe history is shaped by industrial revolutions. The first, steam power, made Britain dominant. The second and third, electrification and mass manufacturing, made America dominant. China is determined to win the fourth. 2️⃣ In robotics, China is already winning. In 2024, China installed 300,000 new industrial robots. America installed 30,000. China now has over 2 million robots in its factories — five times more than the US. A decade ago, it imported 75% of its robots. Today it makes 60% domestically. This year alone, China may spend $400 billion on industrial policy. The entire US CHIPS Act provided $50 billion across multiple years. If we fall behind here, U.S. reindustrialization becomes farfetched. 3️⃣ In AI, we're ahead — but selling off the advantage. China has more energy, more talent, and makes the edge devices. But America still leads because of chips, according to China's own AI companies. US chips are 4-5x better than China's today. We are debating whether to surrender that edge. 4️⃣ We are inviting risks of cyberespionage and catastrophic cyberattacks. PRC law requires its companies to cooperate with intelligence services and never disclose it. Today's robots carry LiDAR, microphones, and cameras — they are mobile surveillance platforms. But the bigger risk is cyberattack. We know China has compromised our power, gas, water, telecommunications, and transportation infrastructure in preparation for cyberattack. We cannot deploy robots in sensitive facilities from the very country targeting those facilities. 5️⃣ Here's what we must do. Extend ICTS rules to cover Chinese robots. Direct CISA to audit where they're deployed in critical infrastructure. Ban federal procurement of Chinese robotics and AI. Strengthen semiconductor export controls. Stop treating American AI companies with more regulatory scrutiny than Chinese ones. And build allied scale in robotics—a trading bloc with preferential terms for the members that can rival China's scale in in the sector. Thanks to @HomelandDemsIt and House Homeland GOP for the hearing on this topic, and grateful to join Michael Robbins and colleagues from Scale and Boston Dynamics for a great discussion.

Rush Doshi

152,123 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 CHINA BUILDS WHILE AMERICA BURNS BILLIONS 🚨 Marco Rubio says America does not want to contain China, but China should not rise at America’s expense. However, who is actually draining America? While China builds infrastructure, expands manufacturing, and signs business deals across the world, Washington is spending $1 billion a day on war in Iran and maintaining hundreds of military bases across the globe. That money is not being spent for the American people. It is being burned in West Asia to weaken Iran, control the Strait of Hormuz, and secure Israel’s dream of becoming the dominant empire of the region. American taxpayers are being sucked dry while China invests in its future. So maybe the problem is not that China is rising. Maybe the problem is that the United States chose empire over its own people.
5:01

🚨 CHINA BUILDS WHILE AMERICA BURNS BILLIONS 🚨 Marco Rubio says America does not want to contain China, but China should not rise at America’s expense. However, who is actually draining America? While China builds infrastructure, expands manufacturing, and signs business deals across the world, Washington is spending $1 billion a day on war in Iran and maintaining hundreds of military bases across the globe. That money is not being spent for the American people. It is being burned in West Asia to weaken Iran, control the Strait of Hormuz, and secure Israel’s dream of becoming the dominant empire of the region. American taxpayers are being sucked dry while China invests in its future. So maybe the problem is not that China is rising. Maybe the problem is that the United States chose empire over its own people.

Kevork Almassian

30,931 次观看 • 2 个月前

China is on the verge of cracking the US's advanced microchip monopoly. Behind the scenes, Americans are PANICKING. And that's why they issued an insane "order" last week, saying that NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (including China) is allowed to use the Huawei Ascend microchip. The US has a long record of arguing that they have a legal right to control use or sales of anything anywhere in the world that may have an American element in its development history. . HERE'S THE STORY The US is keeping a tight hold on advanced microchips from Taiwan, China—including the super-powerful Nvidia chips necessary for AI. So the Chinese company Huawei developed a way of linking less advanced chips together to replicate (and even beat) the computing power of the Nvidia chip, 300 petaflops to 180 petaflops. Chinese nerds did this by using optical connections to make instantaneous transmission between 384 chips. The result was the CloudMatrix 384, which delivers MORE computing power than the top Nvidia chip. But the US says that the Huawei chips inside it include elements, or chiplets, from TSMC in the Chinese province of Taiwan, and will make sure these are not available any more. Now mainland China needs to develop its own chiplets, which won't be easy. . WHO WILL WIN? Top experts like William Huo (whose background is Intel Inc) say we should be rooting for China. That's because the US says it in this fight to maintain global AI dominance, while China will share the breakthrough with the world to create a fairer, safer planet. Who will win this battle? This story is unfolding in real time.
5:04

China is on the verge of cracking the US's advanced microchip monopoly. Behind the scenes, Americans are PANICKING. And that's why they issued an insane "order" last week, saying that NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (including China) is allowed to use the Huawei Ascend microchip. The US has a long record of arguing that they have a legal right to control use or sales of anything anywhere in the world that may have an American element in its development history. . HERE'S THE STORY The US is keeping a tight hold on advanced microchips from Taiwan, China—including the super-powerful Nvidia chips necessary for AI. So the Chinese company Huawei developed a way of linking less advanced chips together to replicate (and even beat) the computing power of the Nvidia chip, 300 petaflops to 180 petaflops. Chinese nerds did this by using optical connections to make instantaneous transmission between 384 chips. The result was the CloudMatrix 384, which delivers MORE computing power than the top Nvidia chip. But the US says that the Huawei chips inside it include elements, or chiplets, from TSMC in the Chinese province of Taiwan, and will make sure these are not available any more. Now mainland China needs to develop its own chiplets, which won't be easy. . WHO WILL WIN? Top experts like William Huo (whose background is Intel Inc) say we should be rooting for China. That's because the US says it in this fight to maintain global AI dominance, while China will share the breakthrough with the world to create a fairer, safer planet. Who will win this battle? This story is unfolding in real time.

Nury Vittachi

28,460 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk: For the next few years, I think America is likely to win the artificial intelligence race. But that early lead is fragile and short-lived. Ultimately, the global victor will be decided by a single factor: it will be a function of who controls the AI chip fabrication. The factories that make the AI chips, who controls them? That is where the real power lies. If those facilities are controlled, if more of them are controlled by China, then China will win the future of AI. Right now, almost all the advanced AI chip factories, they call them fabs, are located in Taiwan. That immense concentration of manufacturing creates a massive vulnerability for the rest of the globe. If China invades Taiwan, what happens to the world? Well, if they were to invade in the near term, the entire world would essentially be cut off from advanced AI chips overnight. Everything would grind to a halt. Currently, one hundred percent of advanced AI chips are made in Taiwan. We are relying entirely on a single location for the critical hardware that will define the next era of human technology and military dominance. Bringing that manufacturing power back home and securing our own supply chain is absolutely essential for national security, and the harsh reality is that we are simply not doing enough to prepare.
1:29

Elon Musk: For the next few years, I think America is likely to win the artificial intelligence race. But that early lead is fragile and short-lived. Ultimately, the global victor will be decided by a single factor: it will be a function of who controls the AI chip fabrication. The factories that make the AI chips, who controls them? That is where the real power lies. If those facilities are controlled, if more of them are controlled by China, then China will win the future of AI. Right now, almost all the advanced AI chip factories, they call them fabs, are located in Taiwan. That immense concentration of manufacturing creates a massive vulnerability for the rest of the globe. If China invades Taiwan, what happens to the world? Well, if they were to invade in the near term, the entire world would essentially be cut off from advanced AI chips overnight. Everything would grind to a halt. Currently, one hundred percent of advanced AI chips are made in Taiwan. We are relying entirely on a single location for the critical hardware that will define the next era of human technology and military dominance. Bringing that manufacturing power back home and securing our own supply chain is absolutely essential for national security, and the harsh reality is that we are simply not doing enough to prepare.

Ian Miles Cheong

409,258 次观看 • 4 个月前

🇺🇸 ELON MUSK ON THE AI ENGAME. ''For the next few years, America is likely to win the AI race.'' Then it becomes a question of who controls the AI chip fabrication. If more of the factories are owned by China, China will win. Right now almost all the advanced factories are in Taiwan. ''If China invades Taiwan in the near term, the world will be cut off from advanced AI chips.'' "It's essential for national security that we begin manufacturing our own chips in the US." My take: China might not even need to invade. Huawei and other domestic players are already racing to close the gap. Turn on your notifications for updates on that.
1:15

🇺🇸 ELON MUSK ON THE AI ENGAME. ''For the next few years, America is likely to win the AI race.'' Then it becomes a question of who controls the AI chip fabrication. If more of the factories are owned by China, China will win. Right now almost all the advanced factories are in Taiwan. ''If China invades Taiwan in the near term, the world will be cut off from advanced AI chips.'' "It's essential for national security that we begin manufacturing our own chips in the US." My take: China might not even need to invade. Huawei and other domestic players are already racing to close the gap. Turn on your notifications for updates on that.

CryptoGoos

14,652 次观看 • 2 个月前

Elon says China's an Ass-kicker-next-level Question on Q4 earnings call: "There's a surge of Chinese companies humanoids; what is Tesla's long-term competitive advantage?" Elon: "By far, the biggest competition for humanoid robots will be from China. China is good at manufacturing, and also in AI, judging from open models. To the best of my knowledge, we don't see significant competition outside of China. People outside of China underestimate China, but China's an ass-kicker next-level. We think we will be more capable than any robot under development in China. We'll be ahead in real-world intelligence and the electromechanical dexterity of the hand design. There are three hardest things for humanoid robots: - the hand - real-world AI - and scaling production Tesla is the only company that has all three of those components."
2:39

Elon says China's an Ass-kicker-next-level Question on Q4 earnings call: "There's a surge of Chinese companies humanoids; what is Tesla's long-term competitive advantage?" Elon: "By far, the biggest competition for humanoid robots will be from China. China is good at manufacturing, and also in AI, judging from open models. To the best of my knowledge, we don't see significant competition outside of China. People outside of China underestimate China, but China's an ass-kicker next-level. We think we will be more capable than any robot under development in China. We'll be ahead in real-world intelligence and the electromechanical dexterity of the hand design. There are three hardest things for humanoid robots: - the hand - real-world AI - and scaling production Tesla is the only company that has all three of those components."

The Humanoid Hub

114,545 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨 Hasan Piker’s Producer Cheers China’s AI Rise and Patriotic Robots While Fearing America’s Tech Will Be Used Against Him This is Eric Hovagim, a producer and researcher for Hasan Piker, reporting from China that America is “getting lapped” technologically. Hovagim praises China’s state-directed approach to technological development and argues that people there view AI as a tool of “liberation.” He then excitedly describes Beijing building an international AI coalition spanning much of the Global South, including BRICS, the African Union, the Arab League, CARICOM, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This clip is a good example of why Americans should bring more nuance to debates over AI and data-center development. Legitimate concerns deserve serious debate, but reflexive opposition also carries costs, especially while China is treating AI infrastructure as a source of national strength and global influence. In China, AI and the infrastructure needed to power it are presented as engines of national progress, liberation, and Global South power. Here in the United States, AI is increasingly portrayed as inherently sinister, its companies are targeted by far-left activists, and opposition to data-center development has become one of the left’s most popular organizing causes. The contrast should be obvious. China is building with the intention of leading the future, while much of the American left is organizing against the infrastructure the United States will need to compete.
2:21

🚨 Hasan Piker’s Producer Cheers China’s AI Rise and Patriotic Robots While Fearing America’s Tech Will Be Used Against Him This is Eric Hovagim, a producer and researcher for Hasan Piker, reporting from China that America is “getting lapped” technologically. Hovagim praises China’s state-directed approach to technological development and argues that people there view AI as a tool of “liberation.” He then excitedly describes Beijing building an international AI coalition spanning much of the Global South, including BRICS, the African Union, the Arab League, CARICOM, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This clip is a good example of why Americans should bring more nuance to debates over AI and data-center development. Legitimate concerns deserve serious debate, but reflexive opposition also carries costs, especially while China is treating AI infrastructure as a source of national strength and global influence. In China, AI and the infrastructure needed to power it are presented as engines of national progress, liberation, and Global South power. Here in the United States, AI is increasingly portrayed as inherently sinister, its companies are targeted by far-left activists, and opposition to data-center development has become one of the left’s most popular organizing causes. The contrast should be obvious. China is building with the intention of leading the future, while much of the American left is organizing against the infrastructure the United States will need to compete.

Stu Smith

87,378 次观看 • 13 天前

NEW: Joe Lonsdale flips AI regulation debate on its head Maria Bartiromo: AI is moving faster than regulation. Does that concern you? Joe: What I'm concerned by is that AI is moving faster than the ability for the government to allow us to do this. AI is helping cure all these new diseases... But we have an FDA that's not letting us save lives... The FDA is not set up for the AI age. It's set up to let China take over the sector... There are more big [pharma] deals buying Chinese drugs [than U.S. drugs]; there are more clinical trials going on in China. We need a leader of the FDA that will push back on the bureaucracy, that will say, we are going to both be safe and we're going to go faster and save more lives.
2:09

NEW: Joe Lonsdale flips AI regulation debate on its head Maria Bartiromo: AI is moving faster than regulation. Does that concern you? Joe: What I'm concerned by is that AI is moving faster than the ability for the government to allow us to do this. AI is helping cure all these new diseases... But we have an FDA that's not letting us save lives... The FDA is not set up for the AI age. It's set up to let China take over the sector... There are more big [pharma] deals buying Chinese drugs [than U.S. drugs]; there are more clinical trials going on in China. We need a leader of the FDA that will push back on the bureaucracy, that will say, we are going to both be safe and we're going to go faster and save more lives.

American Optimist

57,521 次观看 • 2 个月前

Arthur Herman on why China's real threat is not a Taiwan invasion but the race for AI and energy dominance: "A lot of the energy and time is spent focused on the possibility of a kinetic conflict over the Straits of Taiwan. We're missing what the larger picture is. China's interest in launching such a kinetic conflict, win, lose, or draw, are overwhelmingly unfavorable to the outcome they want." "The outcome they want is to absorb Taiwan, not to conquer it or destroy it. To make it piece by piece, step by step, part of the larger communist enterprise." "If China really were hell-bent on bringing about a kinetic conquest of Taiwan, they would have taken advantage of our engagement in Iran and in the Straits of Hormuz a long time ago. But they didn't do it because tangling with America in any kind of kinetic conflict is a much more difficult proposition than they want to take on." "The big picture is the race for AI dominance, the race for energy dominance. That's where the real struggle with China is going to be played out. That's where we've got the real advantage." Arthur Herman
4:01

Arthur Herman on why China's real threat is not a Taiwan invasion but the race for AI and energy dominance: "A lot of the energy and time is spent focused on the possibility of a kinetic conflict over the Straits of Taiwan. We're missing what the larger picture is. China's interest in launching such a kinetic conflict, win, lose, or draw, are overwhelmingly unfavorable to the outcome they want." "The outcome they want is to absorb Taiwan, not to conquer it or destroy it. To make it piece by piece, step by step, part of the larger communist enterprise." "If China really were hell-bent on bringing about a kinetic conquest of Taiwan, they would have taken advantage of our engagement in Iran and in the Straits of Hormuz a long time ago. But they didn't do it because tangling with America in any kind of kinetic conflict is a much more difficult proposition than they want to take on." "The big picture is the race for AI dominance, the race for energy dominance. That's where the real struggle with China is going to be played out. That's where we've got the real advantage." Arthur Herman

MTS

35,530 次观看 • 5 天前

The Economist asks why China and America see AI so differently. The answer is bigger than technology. It is psychology. In China, optimism about AI runs from government policy to companies to ordinary workers. People know disruption is coming. They know jobs will change. They know some industries will disappear. But the instinct is still: build first, adapt fast, solve the problems as they appear. In America, the instinct increasingly runs the other way: fear the disruption, litigate it, regulate it, politicize it, build barriers around it, and then call the barriers “responsible innovation.” The difference is deeper than AI. China still has a strong social belief that technology can make life better and that society can absorb change. America increasingly treats every technological shift as another mechanism through which ordinary people may be abandoned by the system. That is why one society sees robots and asks: “How do we use them?” while the other asks: “Who is going to lose their job?” One is operating from confidence. The other from accumulated distrust. And that matters far more than any benchmark. You cannot lead a technological revolution if your society has already decided that every new technology is another threat waiting to happen. China is not fearless because disruption does not hurt. China is less afraid because it still believes disruption can be survived. America’s real problem is not that it fears AI. It is that too many Americans no longer trust their own system to protect them from the future. The real AI gap may not be compute. It may be confidence in the future.
7:26

The Economist asks why China and America see AI so differently. The answer is bigger than technology. It is psychology. In China, optimism about AI runs from government policy to companies to ordinary workers. People know disruption is coming. They know jobs will change. They know some industries will disappear. But the instinct is still: build first, adapt fast, solve the problems as they appear. In America, the instinct increasingly runs the other way: fear the disruption, litigate it, regulate it, politicize it, build barriers around it, and then call the barriers “responsible innovation.” The difference is deeper than AI. China still has a strong social belief that technology can make life better and that society can absorb change. America increasingly treats every technological shift as another mechanism through which ordinary people may be abandoned by the system. That is why one society sees robots and asks: “How do we use them?” while the other asks: “Who is going to lose their job?” One is operating from confidence. The other from accumulated distrust. And that matters far more than any benchmark. You cannot lead a technological revolution if your society has already decided that every new technology is another threat waiting to happen. China is not fearless because disruption does not hurt. China is less afraid because it still believes disruption can be survived. America’s real problem is not that it fears AI. It is that too many Americans no longer trust their own system to protect them from the future. The real AI gap may not be compute. It may be confidence in the future.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

46,185 次观看 • 2 天前

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.
1:01

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.

Ricardo

159,345 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨"NEVER TRUST SAM ALTMAN, EVER... HE'S NOT A PERSON, HE'S A BRAND" Mo Gawdat delivers blistering takedown of OpenAI CEO, claiming Altman represents Silicon Valley vapor over substance while comparing OpenAI's profit focus to Google's early mission-driven projects: "Never trust Sam Altman, ever. Sam Altman is not a person. Sam Altman is the creation of a system. California is a place where vapor is worth more than solids. You look at OpenAI's original promise, which was to protect the world from artificial intelligence, to make AI work for humanity, and then you look for actions that support that. And if you don't find any, then it's just a pitch. You could see at OpenAI how all of them, Ilya and Mira, most of the core team left and asked for the company to change its leadership." Mo Gawdat
5:47

🚨"NEVER TRUST SAM ALTMAN, EVER... HE'S NOT A PERSON, HE'S A BRAND" Mo Gawdat delivers blistering takedown of OpenAI CEO, claiming Altman represents Silicon Valley vapor over substance while comparing OpenAI's profit focus to Google's early mission-driven projects: "Never trust Sam Altman, ever. Sam Altman is not a person. Sam Altman is the creation of a system. California is a place where vapor is worth more than solids. You look at OpenAI's original promise, which was to protect the world from artificial intelligence, to make AI work for humanity, and then you look for actions that support that. And if you don't find any, then it's just a pitch. You could see at OpenAI how all of them, Ilya and Mira, most of the core team left and asked for the company to change its leadership." Mo Gawdat

Mario Nawfal

17,634 次观看 • 8 个月前

JUST IN 🚨 : Jensen Huang explained how blocking China from Nvidia does not anymore means blocking China from AI. If you don’t give your competitor the best chips, they will lag behind. This is how export control stories go. China is not waiting at the door of American computer systems anymore. Huawei’s rise is an example of a ban becoming an economic boost. It creates a market and teaches domestic suppliers how to get stronger, grow and export. Now the real battle is over who controls the chips, the talent, the energy, the infrastructure, the models, the apps and the whole intelligence stack. Thinking of chip policy as a valve that can be opened and closed is wrong. Each barrier slows down one flow while speeding up another. In the long run, the threat may be to a world in which American technology is absent from the systems that the US wishes to change. --- From "Fox Business" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)
0:30

JUST IN 🚨 : Jensen Huang explained how blocking China from Nvidia does not anymore means blocking China from AI. If you don’t give your competitor the best chips, they will lag behind. This is how export control stories go. China is not waiting at the door of American computer systems anymore. Huawei’s rise is an example of a ban becoming an economic boost. It creates a market and teaches domestic suppliers how to get stronger, grow and export. Now the real battle is over who controls the chips, the talent, the energy, the infrastructure, the models, the apps and the whole intelligence stack. Thinking of chip policy as a valve that can be opened and closed is wrong. Each barrier slows down one flow while speeding up another. In the long run, the threat may be to a world in which American technology is absent from the systems that the US wishes to change. --- From "Fox Business" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Hasan

29,181 次观看 • 22 天前

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”
1:32

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Bearly AI

43,816 次观看 • 2 个月前

After Japan's new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi claimed that a Taiwan "emergency" could constitute a "survival-threatening situation", some Western commentators labeled China's full-spectrum diplomatic response an "overreaction". But before talking about China's reaction, we must be honest about what Japan escalated first. "Survival crisis" is a legal war trigger under Japan's 2015 security legislation, allowing the use of force even when Japan isn't attacked. This is the first time a Japanese prime minister has implied Japan could enter a war with China over Taiwan — a matter that is purely China's internal affair. Meanwhile, Japan is re-militarizing, mirroring the 1930s, when Japan used the logic of "existential fear" to justify its invasions. With unresolved wartime history, this is an alarm bell China cannot ignore. And claims that China is "ungrateful" for Japan's ODA are pure gaslighting. In fact, Japan's ODA to China was not charity. Over 80% was loans, not free money. And China had to spend the money on Japanese companies, equipment and contractors. In the end, Japan earned far more from China than it ever "gave". So, China's response is not an overreaction; it is a responsible government acting responsibly. #MediaUnlocked
3:29

After Japan's new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi claimed that a Taiwan "emergency" could constitute a "survival-threatening situation", some Western commentators labeled China's full-spectrum diplomatic response an "overreaction". But before talking about China's reaction, we must be honest about what Japan escalated first. "Survival crisis" is a legal war trigger under Japan's 2015 security legislation, allowing the use of force even when Japan isn't attacked. This is the first time a Japanese prime minister has implied Japan could enter a war with China over Taiwan — a matter that is purely China's internal affair. Meanwhile, Japan is re-militarizing, mirroring the 1930s, when Japan used the logic of "existential fear" to justify its invasions. With unresolved wartime history, this is an alarm bell China cannot ignore. And claims that China is "ungrateful" for Japan's ODA are pure gaslighting. In fact, Japan's ODA to China was not charity. Over 80% was loans, not free money. And China had to spend the money on Japanese companies, equipment and contractors. In the end, Japan earned far more from China than it ever "gave". So, China's response is not an overreaction; it is a responsible government acting responsibly. #MediaUnlocked

MediaUnlocked

11,324 次观看 • 8 个月前

Jensen Huang just admitted Nvidia is paying for BOTH ends of its own $500 billion deal. Every outlet ran the same headline: Nvidia is putting half a trillion dollars into Korea. The largest AI infrastructure commitment ever announced with a single partner. But when asked what was actually inside that number and whether this is Nvidia spending money in the Korean economy, or SK fronting the capital themselves, Jensen said this: "We're gonna be purchasing memories from them for many years to come. In order to build a trillion dollars worth of Vera Rubin systems, you're gonna have to buy a lot of system memories to go with it. And so we have large purchase agreements and large purchase intentions with SK Hynix. Meanwhile, SK Telecom is gonna become an AI cloud. And in that agreement, we will be selling AI supercomputers to them. So between us, we're gonna do $500 billion worth of business." He literally described two completely different transactions and added them together. Nvidia pays SK Hynix for memory chips. SK Telecom pays Nvidia for supercomputers. Both directions get stacked into one figure and handed to the market as demand. A large share of that half trillion dollars is Nvidia's own money going OUT the door. This is the CEO of the most important chip company on Earth. His silicon runs every serious AI system on the planet. If anyone alive could announce a clean half trillion in customer demand, it's him. Instead he announced a number that counts his own supplier payments as "business." But now this is where it gets genuinely crazy... Bloomberg asked how badly Nvidia needs Korean supply to grow. Jensen said Nvidia does not have enough bits. He said the company is constrained in HBM memory, constrained in LPDDR memory, and constrained in just about every part of the supply chain. Then he named the bottleneck nobody expected: "We're even constrained now with land and power and construction workers to set up the data centers." The company announcing the biggest AI deal in history cannot hire enough people to pour concrete. Then he capped the entire industry. He said the industry has the ability to double each year, and will have a hard time growing much faster than that. Now hold that against the target he set at the top of the same interview: He said the semiconductor industry probably has to become 10x larger than it is today over the next decade. Doubling annually clears that on a spreadsheet. But in reality it only happens if land, power and construction crews cooperate every single year for ten years straight. And the demand justifying all of it is a number most people have not heard yet. Jensen is planning for 100 BILLION AI agents and billions of robots using computers. That is the actual bet. 10x the industry, financed by deals where the vendor is also the customer, and gated by how fast you can find electricians. Korea's market did not celebrate any of this by the way. The KOSPI has been falling hard and SK Hynix and Samsung both slumped while the half trillion dollar headline was running. Jensen listed both directions of money and totaled them on camera because he does not think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe there isn't. Chips have to be bought before systems can be sold. But the market is pricing these announcements as demand, and at least half of this one is spending.
1:21

Jensen Huang just admitted Nvidia is paying for BOTH ends of its own $500 billion deal. Every outlet ran the same headline: Nvidia is putting half a trillion dollars into Korea. The largest AI infrastructure commitment ever announced with a single partner. But when asked what was actually inside that number and whether this is Nvidia spending money in the Korean economy, or SK fronting the capital themselves, Jensen said this: "We're gonna be purchasing memories from them for many years to come. In order to build a trillion dollars worth of Vera Rubin systems, you're gonna have to buy a lot of system memories to go with it. And so we have large purchase agreements and large purchase intentions with SK Hynix. Meanwhile, SK Telecom is gonna become an AI cloud. And in that agreement, we will be selling AI supercomputers to them. So between us, we're gonna do $500 billion worth of business." He literally described two completely different transactions and added them together. Nvidia pays SK Hynix for memory chips. SK Telecom pays Nvidia for supercomputers. Both directions get stacked into one figure and handed to the market as demand. A large share of that half trillion dollars is Nvidia's own money going OUT the door. This is the CEO of the most important chip company on Earth. His silicon runs every serious AI system on the planet. If anyone alive could announce a clean half trillion in customer demand, it's him. Instead he announced a number that counts his own supplier payments as "business." But now this is where it gets genuinely crazy... Bloomberg asked how badly Nvidia needs Korean supply to grow. Jensen said Nvidia does not have enough bits. He said the company is constrained in HBM memory, constrained in LPDDR memory, and constrained in just about every part of the supply chain. Then he named the bottleneck nobody expected: "We're even constrained now with land and power and construction workers to set up the data centers." The company announcing the biggest AI deal in history cannot hire enough people to pour concrete. Then he capped the entire industry. He said the industry has the ability to double each year, and will have a hard time growing much faster than that. Now hold that against the target he set at the top of the same interview: He said the semiconductor industry probably has to become 10x larger than it is today over the next decade. Doubling annually clears that on a spreadsheet. But in reality it only happens if land, power and construction crews cooperate every single year for ten years straight. And the demand justifying all of it is a number most people have not heard yet. Jensen is planning for 100 BILLION AI agents and billions of robots using computers. That is the actual bet. 10x the industry, financed by deals where the vendor is also the customer, and gated by how fast you can find electricians. Korea's market did not celebrate any of this by the way. The KOSPI has been falling hard and SK Hynix and Samsung both slumped while the half trillion dollar headline was running. Jensen listed both directions of money and totaled them on camera because he does not think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe there isn't. Chips have to be bought before systems can be sold. But the market is pricing these announcements as demand, and at least half of this one is spending.

Ricardo

35,553 次观看 • 17 天前